London cyclist may have hit door

[growingvegetables]

Sickening. Feeling absolutely gutted for the cyclist's family.

 

[Kins]

There is no loophole in the law.


The Construction and Use regulations cover many offences. Offences such as driving with worn tyres, defective steering or brakes are covered by this legislation. So is driving with excessively tinted windows.

But the Met have said previously they don't deem this a serious offence and some get a warning and some get a few points. It seems from the verdict that the Jurors thought the same, a misdeameanor that was unfortunate to cause the death of this poor bloke. So, as usual, it certain contexts, the laws an ass. The same for death by dangerous driving. Very few heavy convictions and families of victims have been campaigning for years with no effect.

What ever peoples views they aren't gonna change the laws and they are very rarely going to get high tarriff convictions. Poor family, hope they pursue it through the civil courts and get somewhere.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

'Beyond reasonable doubt' makes conviction a real challenge when there is any doubt. I have sat on trials on the jury and can guarantee you that during deliberations it is very difficult to claim that the decision you make is beyond reasonable doubt.

I think this ^^^ is important.

We (as cyclists) may feel strongly about this but have to remember to distance ourselves from emotional judgement.
IMO it is a very hard, to judge, situation. Could be a one off mistake. Could be the driver has done it 100's of times. Without being on the jury and hearing the evidence then it's too hard to judge.

With the law as it is - two separate incidents, that are similar, could end up with entirely different verdicts based on the outcome.
If the cyclist dies should the driver suffer a worse fate than if the cyclist lives? This eventuality is surely out of the hands of the accused. If the cyclist merely falls over and gets nasty road rash then the crime is still the same.
I think intent should be far more serious. Like a driver swerving to hit a cyclist. Such a manoeuvre could kill and should be punished no matter the outcome. Attempted murder should carry the same sentence as murder IMO. It just means the attempt was unsuccessful.

One could argue the same for the car driver. It was not intended. It was an accident. I don't contest that it should go unpunished but i do not think the driver should end up with a guilty sentence for manslaughter.

The law, IMO, is not exactly fair justice.

 

[PK99]

, but maybe I just don't understand the concept clearly enough...

?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#manslaughter

 

[teekay421]

Still a don't give a fck about anyone else looking typical ar sebag to me and all too common I'm sick of riding around/allowing for/anticipating these fools and excuses let off lightly ignorance, irresponsibility I'm no doubt out of line but sickened at the general attitude we've got to deal with as cyclists what feels like survival against if not callous vindictive actions here just idiotic vacant disregard.

 

[benborp]

The same for death by dangerous driving. Very few heavy convictions and families of victims have been campaigning for years with no effect.

What ever peoples views they aren't gonna change the laws and they are very rarely going to get high tarriff convictions.

But people have been campaigning for a change in the law over road death and this resulted in the introduction of the offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and causing death while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.
These offences were introduced because juries were not convicting where a causing death by dangerous driving charge should have been proven and also a recognition that there was no appropriate sanction for drivers causing death in less extreme circumstances. Juries though have continued to avoid finding drivers guilty of 'causing death' charges.
As in many other areas the law has been developed to quite a high degree to deal with the intricacies of modern life. The trouble is the jury system is doing exactly what it is supposed to and judging people by the standards of our society. Not too long ago it would have been unthinkable to challenge the jury system, that isn't the case now.

 

[benborp]

It was not intended. It was an accident. I don't contest that it should go unpunished but i do not think the driver should end up with a guilty sentence for manslaughter.

But the charge of manslaughter exists exactly for these circumstances. If someone performs an illegal act that results in someone else's death, even if they didn't mean any harm, they have committed manslaughter.

 

[veloevol]

More than that, if you try to cycle there and ignore the red cycle lane to stay out of the door zone, drivers get really upset with you and start to present a different sort of danger to you. Its a question of either finding the right balance between being doored or being hit or find another route (which in this case if difficult).

What do you really fear from taking up primary position? You're over blowing the threat from behind. Yes a vehicle from behind could take your life but only once you've been thrown to the floor.

 

[Trickedem]

Having sat on a jury, I think it is very unfair to blame them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if thee wasn't some strong direction given by the judge as to what conditions should be met for a guilt verdict.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

But the charge of manslaughter exists exactly for these circumstances. If someone performs an illegal act that results in someone else's death, even if they didn't mean any harm, they have committed manslaughter.

Yes of course, and in this case involuntary manslaughter through reckless behaviour. It is though very unlikely that the accused would ever be convicted of manslaughter in these circumstances.
If the drivers door had caused the death, directly - blunt trauma etc, then a charge of involuntary manslaughter would hold more weight. The door opening was the start of a series of events leading, indirectly, to the cyclists death.

 

[Pale Rider]

I suspect the chain of events was too long for the jury to hold the car driver responsible.

A conviction would have been more likely had the cyclist died solely from injuries sustained by hitting the door.

And I bet the bus driver is keeping his head down.

 

[Boris Bajic]

You've been watching too much TV. No judge would give instruction to a jury using the words "beyond reasonable doubt".

I sat on four juries during a single brief stint of jury service.

In one we were directed to give a Not Guilty. In the other three the judge was explicit (as were the defence counsels) in outlining the necessity for a guilty verdict to be reached only if the evidence presented supported that view beyond reasonable doubt. The phrase was used several times by the judge and its meaning was explained. The meanings of other expressions were explained too, as was the exact nature of what we were being asked to decide.

This was in 1990. Have things changed since then?

 

[gavintc]

You've been watching too much TV. No judge would give instruction to a jury using the words "beyond reasonable doubt".

I take it you have been in a jury and can speak with detailed knowledge.

 

[Pale Rider]

I sat on four juries during a single brief stint of jury service.

In one we were directed to give a Not Guilty. In the other three the judge was explicit (as were the defence counsels) in outlining the necessity for a guilty verdict to be reached only if the evidence presented supported that view beyond reasonable doubt. The phrase was used several times by the judge and its meaning was explained. The meanings of other expressions were explained too, as was the exact nature of what we were being asked to decide.

This was in 1990. Have things changed since then?

No.

In my professional capacity I have heard dozens of summings-up in criminal trials.

Each judge has his or her own style, but most will give the jury some some explanation of the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'satisfied so that you are sure'.

One I recall was: "You must be certain of your decision in the same way you are a certain of a major decision in your own lives, such as buying a house or changing your job."

 

[benborp]

I've just read a BBC article on this case and one of the judge's rulings during the trial is mentioned.

At an earlier stage in the trial, the judge ruled that the jury could not consider a charge of manslaughter by an unlawful act - but said the driver should still face a charge of manslaughter caused by gross negligence.

Does anyone have any background on how this decision might have been made?